09.20: Review of progress - Research Output 1 (IFPRI / Wageningen UR / Platform organizers)
Presentation IFPRI 15' maximum
Presentation Wageningen 15' maximum
Questions and Answers 15'
Short presentation by platform organizers (Per Hilbur / Regis Chikowo / Jens Anderssen / Patrick Okori) 5'
Discussion among platform owners / coordinators (20')
Process:
The 2 presentations last 15' maximum each. We give 5' of table buzzing and generating questions (on cards) after each of the presentation.
Then we take 15' questions (1 max / table) and answer them
Then we ask the 4 platform organizers (internationals) to very briefly introduce the process of setting up the platforms in all sites, leading into...
And then basically invite the 4 platform coordinators/owners (locals) to start a closed fishbowl discussion about their understanding of the platforms and progress to date, their challenges etc. During that time all listeners can also put their questions on cards and we collect them at the end of the session.
We use the break for people to voice their questions informally and for the 4 fishbowl speakers to come back to the questions (briefly) after the break.
10.30: Break
11.00: Review of progress - Research Output 2 (Babati / Kongwa-Kiteto)
Process: Presentations are 20 to 30' maximum, with planned breaks at 2-3 different times in the presentation for people to ask their questions - possibly leading to transitions from one person to the next.At the end of the presentation, some people come to present the R4D platform progress/work - hopefully verbally rather than by Powerpoint...
13.00: Lunch
14.00: Review of progress - Research Output 2 (Malawi / Zambia)
Process: Possibly same as above, or indeed we ask them to print out the slides and display them somewhere in the venue room for everyone to go through and come back to them for Q&As (30-45')
Same process as above for the R4D platforms and Q&A
16.00: Break
16.30: Impact of sustainable Intensification on landscapes in Zambia (Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon on behalf of Robert Richardson)
Process: Normal presentation (15' maximum) and Q&A session (15'), with buzz on the table prior to that...
17.00 Introducing research proposals and planning (chief scientist) / discussion
Process: Short presentation about the research proposals and planning + discussion
17.20: Close
18.30: Dinner
Wednesday 10 September
08.30: Seeking Wisdom: Where we are with research, and expectations
Comments – Jerry Glover, Victor Manyong & Other Steering Committee Members
Discussion
Process: Closed fishbowl discussion at the centre of the room and all of us around + opening up in the end to get views from participants
09.30: Introducing 2014-2016 log frame as basis for developing plans (Mateete Bekunda)
Emphasizing the FTF Indicators (Ainsley Charles)
Process: Mateete introduces the template on Powerpoint (together with the persons that he has briefed about this template in each of the sites). Ainsley introduces the FTF indicators part. The briefed staff answer questions from the crowd.
10.30: Break
11.00: Research team work In parallel: Project steering committee meeting
Process: One team leader, time keeper, documenter (full documentation on soft copy and presentation of final presentation on either flipchart sheet or PPT template with max 4 slides.OK [ELB] This means we'll have to prepare that PPT template.
13.00: Lunch
14.00: Research team work In parallel: Project steering committee meeting
Process: See above
16.00: Break
16.30: Taking stock of progress (15 min per team)
Process: Rotation with 1-2 people staying for each team and the rest of the team moving to other slots to find out how they've done their work and how they can improve it (= 3x15') + 15' in plenary
17.30: Briefing from the Steering Committee (15 min)
Process: Debriefing, possibly again in closed fishbowl format. Opening the floor for participants' questions at the end about topics they hoped would be addressed next.
17.45: Close
18.30: Dinner
Thursday 11 September
08.30: Coming back to the un-addressed & next issues by the Steering Committee
08.45: Market place for peer support / parallel peer review
** Process: Peer assist (or alternatively we could basically flag the problems per team and find quick ways (max 30') to solve that problem with others from outside the site team - and report back in plenary) around the issues we are seeing.
09.30: Research team work continued
Process:
10.30: Break
11.00: Research team work continued
Process:
13.00: Lunch
14.00: Presentations of team plans and indicators
Process: I would do this as a rotating presentation (3 rotations) so everyone gets to find out what the final results are and to question them in 3x40' (10-15' presentation and the rest as questions)...The participants are split as site groups. Each of the site groups goes see the presentation of another site team for 10-15' and get another 25-30' for questions); then they move on to another site team for another sequence like this, and yet for another one. At the end everyone has heard all the presentations, given some comments and we just pick up some plenary comments from the presenters about major points of feedback.
16.00: Break
16.30: Evaluation, closing and thanks
Process: Evaluation in a '1-2-4-all format to gather lots of feedback points', possibly on the point of: 'so what was achieved' and 'now what have we to do'?
Thank you's from Irmgard...
Friday 12 September (tentative)
(tentative) 09.00: How to access, share, use, improve Africa RISING information and communication (Communication platform/channel training)
11.00: Close [OPTIONAL: Blogging/content writing secial training session]
Background materials
Participants
Outputs
[PREVIOUS PROCESS NOTES FOR THE RECORD]
Can we ask them to do their presentation in a different way (e.g. Prezi, or Powerpoint Ignite/Pecha KuchaI do not know these [ELB] They are basically very short and visual presentations (e.g. 20 slides of 15 seconds). Prezi is very different see: http://prezi.com/lcbyacc7tvjj/navigating-me-in-a-complex-world-new-gaps-and-km-opportunities/, or with a flipchart sheet and talking over it, or from the centre of the room, or interrupting their presentation and organising 2-3 moments in the presentation to pick the brains of the crowd? Or do a talk show about this? And perhaps they could send you more information about their presentation upfront so you (Irmgard/Mateete) get more information upfront?On flipchart will be difficult because of poor readability. Interrupting presentations would be good. Not only Mateete and I need to know what has been done, also the others in the room. [ELB] Ok let's try and do this then: asking presenters to pick up 2 or 3 key moments in their presentation when they ask a question to the participants, or they invite feedback. We can also get the clarification questions on cards and the presenters can actually answer these at another moment...
Can we help them present this in a more compelling way than normal? Especially this slot (after lunch) will be a difficult one to follow... An alternative could also be that we print out their presentation and people can actually just read the presentaiton this way and they can answer some questions in plenary instead of going through every single slide?We can do this like powerpoint handouts with some explanatory text. [ELB] Yes it's worth a try anyhow... Great!
Again same options as above? We definitely need to change the flow of the presentations if they all follow the same idea at the moment...This is a new addition to the project and they do different things. There should be lots' of curiosity to hear what Robert has to say. [ELB] Great, and perhaps there we can do this in a normal Powerpoint format...
preferably with one person from each of the country teams having been briefed about the template before, so Mateete can actually rely on them to relay the information too. QUESTION: IS AINSLEY STILL WORKING FOR AFRICA RISING? I kinda understood he wasn't...Ainsley is still with us. I do not understand the suggested process. [ELB] Great news (about Ainsley). And the process is basically that Mateete perhaps introduces the template on Powerpoint or so but has briefed one person for Babati, K-K, Malawi and Zambia, so they all know how this template works and can also answer questions from the crowd here in this session and in the group work in the next session.
What if the SC has not addressed any of their suggested topics? [ELB] Well, then that's a clear case of 'needs to be addressed soon after this meeting', it will be useful feedback anyhow.
Alternatively we can also do a written evaluation formNO [ELB] Good, that'd be wonderful.
And the 'What - So What - Now What' exercise works in groups and requires groups to go through these 3 series of questions in a semi-structured manner. I think 1-2-4-all would be better for this. Basically 1-2-4-all works this way:
Think for 1 minute alone about what you picked up from this workshop and what you would like to see happen beyond
Share your feedback for 2 minutes (ie. +/- 1min per person) with someone else (pair up)
Share your feedback for 4 minutes
Then anyone can share key feedback points from either of the groups...
RO1 IS MORE THAN WHAT WAGENINGEN aND IFPRI DO. IT INCLUDES THE R4D PLATFORMS, INVENTORY OF INNOVATIONS, PRIORITIZATION OF RESEARCH. SO WE NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST ALSO PER HILLBUR, Regis, Anderssen, Patrick Okori REPORTING HERE OR WE ORGANIZE A SEPARATE SESSION ON PLATFORMS AS SUGGESTED BY MATEETE.
East and Southern Africa review and planning meeting
9-11 September 2014Ngurdoto, Arusha, Tanzania
Organizers' meeting page
Objectives:
Agenda
Tuesday 9 September
Wednesday 10 September
Thursday 11 September
** Process: Peer assist (or alternatively we could basically flag the problems per team and find quick ways (max 30') to solve that problem with others from outside the site team - and report back in plenary) around the issues we are seeing.
Friday 12 September (tentative)
Background materials
Participants
Outputs
[PREVIOUS PROCESS NOTES FOR THE RECORD]
What if the SC has not addressed any of their suggested topics? [ELB] Well, then that's a clear case of 'needs to be addressed soon after this meeting', it will be useful feedback anyhow.
At the end of the session we should have some refined listing of items to improve/work on for each of the teams
I would go for no.2. [ELB] I think that would be really great if it's not about how (just) to fill the template but rather how to answer the questions from a content perspective. Let's roll for this if Mateete is also ok with the idea. See more about the peer assist methodology here: http://infoilri.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/online-peer-assists-learning-about-concrete-solutions-and-better-questions-for-water-and-land-management-researchers/
RO1 IS MORE THAN WHAT WAGENINGEN aND IFPRI DO. IT INCLUDES THE R4D PLATFORMS, INVENTORY OF INNOVATIONS, PRIORITIZATION OF RESEARCH. SO WE NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST ALSO PER HILLBUR, Regis, Anderssen, Patrick Okori REPORTING HERE OR WE ORGANIZE A SEPARATE SESSION ON PLATFORMS AS SUGGESTED BY MATEETE.